[ULPIANUS libro quarto disputationum. ] §30.1.74.prLicet imperator noster cum patre rescripserit uideri uoluntate testatoris repetita a substituto, quae ab instituto fuerant relicta, tamen hoc ita erit accipiendum, si non fuit euidens diuersa uoluntas: quae ex multis colligetur, an quis ab herede legatum uel fideicommissum relictum noluerit a substituto deberi.
[ULPIAN, Book 4 of Disputes.] Although our Emperor with his father has issued a rescript to the effect that what had been left by the instituted heir is deemed to have been repeated from the substituted heir by the will of the testator, yet this must be understood in such a way only if a contrary intention was not obvious: which intention, whether someone did not wish a legacy or a trust left by the heir to be owed by the substitute, will be inferred from many circumstances.
quid enim si aliam rem reliquit a substituto ei fideicommissario uel legatario, quam ab instituto non reliquerat? uel quid si certa causa fuit, cur ab instituto relinqueret, quae in substituto cessaret? uel quid si substituit ex parte fideicommissarium, cui ab instituto reliquerat fideicommissum? in obscura igitur uoluntate locum habere rescriptum dicendum est.
For what if he left another thing from the substitute to that beneficiary of a trust or legatee, which he had not left from the instituted heir? Or what if there was a specific reason why he left it from the instituted heir, which reason would cease in the case of the substitute? Or what if he substituted, for a part, the beneficiary of a trust to whom he had left a trust from the instituted heir? Therefore, it must be said that the rescript has application in the case of an obscure intention.